Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody
needs
the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc).
3) Fixing the issue by yourself and sending the pull-request to rubygems project
You asked the upstream today, then if they are stumbling to fix it,
"3)" is a good way isn't it to promote fixing the issue isn't it?
Jun
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dne 20.12.2017 v 17:11 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>>
>> Dne 19.12.2017 v 19:19 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
>>
>>>> 2) If "gem install" as root still works the same.
>>> "gem list" result is same for regular user's situation.
>>>
>>> I found the difference of the behavior between Upstream Ruby and Fedora
Ruby.
>>> Case 2-1. does not install ri document by "gem install".
>> This is interesting. I remember to notice the shorter output, but I
>> didn't pay enough attention to it. Will take a look at it.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Apparently I have met this issue already:
>
>
https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/issues/1470
>
> So as long as upstream ignores this issue, there are just two options:
>
> 1) The documentation wont be installed by default.
> 2) The handling of default gems will be broken.
>
Neither is ideal, but I prefer the first option a bit. If somebody
needs
> the documentation, it can be generated explicitly (gem rdoc).
>
>
> Vít
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Jun Aruga jaruga(a)redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic